Background
Afridi Ahmed Towsif, a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for a work permit to work as an “Ethnic Food Cook.” Employment and Social Development Canada had approved a Labour Market Impact Assessment for the position under National Occupational Classification 63200—Cooks, but the parties agreed that this approval did not bind the immigration officer, who had to assess the application independently.
Towsif submitted a résumé describing experience as a line cook at the Sheraton Hotel and as a chef at the Asia Hotel and Resort. A disputed reference letter from the Asia Hotel praised his personal qualities and cooking abilities, but the Court found that, even if the officer had received it, the letter did not establish the specific experience required to perform all the duties associated with the position. The officer denied the application under subsection 200(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, concluding that the evidence did not show Towsif could adequately perform duties including managing kitchen operations, maintaining inventory, and hiring and training staff.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Azmudeh dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the officer’s decision was reasonable. The evidentiary record, with or without the Asia Hotel reference letter, did not establish that Towsif could perform all the relevant job duties. His résumé did not demonstrate experience maintaining inventory, hiring or training staff, or managing a kitchen, and the applicant bore the burden of submitting complete, convincing, and unambiguous evidence.
The Court acknowledged that the officer inaccurately stated that Towsif had “no work experience in the field.” That error was not sufficiently material to make the decision unreasonable because the officer’s reasons, read as a whole, explained which required duties were unsupported by the evidence and why the application failed. Towsif’s arguments effectively asked the Court to reweigh the evidence, which was not its role on reasonableness review.
Key Takeaways
- An approved Labour Market Impact Assessment does not bind an immigration officer assessing whether a work-permit applicant can perform the proposed job.
- Applicants must provide clear evidence connecting their qualifications and experience to the material duties of the applicable occupational classification.
- An inaccurate statement in an officer’s reasons will not necessarily make the decision unreasonable when the overall reasoning remains clear, justified, and supported by the record.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that generalized evidence of experience or positive personal qualities may not establish eligibility for a work permit when the proposed occupation includes specific operational or supervisory duties. Applicants should document their ability to perform each material component of the offered position rather than rely on job titles or broad descriptions of competence.
It also illustrates the contextual approach to reasonableness review: a reviewing court may uphold an administrative decision despite a factual misstatement if the error does not undermine the decision’s central reasoning or outcome.